Iraq, Afghanistan, The U.S. and beyond: Its The Border....Stupid

As a libertarian, I'm in favor of a relatively open border. The major difference I have with the LP is that I believe we should know who is coming, and have the right of refusal. I've written that a wall wouldn't keep me out, that this is a problem only Mexico can really solve, and I maintain that position.

What surprised me the most at the other nights Democratic debate is the fact that only one candidate (Chris Dodd) raised their hand to say they opposed giving drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants.

It reminds me of what has happened to the country over the last few years.

I've come to the conclusion that its the border.....stupid.

The Afghani Border

In Afghanistan, we didn't immediately secure the border with Pakistan (or Iran for that matter), and have still been unable to achieve this objective to date. This has allowed Osama Bin Laden (who we're no longer concerned about, by the way) to skirt capture for over 6 years. Its also allowed the Taliban to, from time to time, rally and cause trouble for our undersized military force there.

I'm not a professional military strategist, but its seems, we would have secured the border first. The argument is that its virtually impossible to secure the porous mountainous border along the southern part of the country.

That dog won't hunt. If Bin Laden can get to any point on the border, our forces can as well. We just didn't send enough troops to achieve this objective.

Maybe it was never an objective.

The Iraqi Border

The invasion went without a hitch. The occupation (which our military isn't trained for) has not gone so well. We've found that its apparently easy to sneak ordinance across the border (from wherever) to use on our military men and women.

One of the principal problems that war-hawks site when selling their planned invasion of Iran is that they have funded the resistance. They have supplied the terrorists (the ones fighting the sect of Islam that actually attacked the U.S. on September 11th) with arms, IED materials, and even personnel.

Seems like this has been our military planners fault. Was Iran our ally when we invaded (we supported Saddam's side in the Iran-Iraq war of the eighties)? Did we not think that the Iranians would attempt to aid their shia brethren who had been so mistreated under the previous regime's rule?

Were we concerned that Iran, who had the most developed WMD program in the middle-east, who had (even before Akmadenijad) threatened to "destroy Israel", who had actually attacked the U.S. forces in Beirut in the eighties, might try to destabilize the region?

The U.S. border

Our government has obviously made the decision that we are not going to close our southern borders. Its also decided that it will not legalize the illegal immigrants are here, leaving them in a permanent state of purgatory. That's how the government keeps our wages down.

If we were so concerned about terrorists sneaking across the border, we'd have at least made the attempt to secure it. Of course, that would slow down the push for the NAU, which will eventually be the mother of all border situations.

This is not an indictment of the Bush Administration alone. The Democratically controlled congress has not even brought this issue up. They're too busy trying to fund state health care (I want to emphasize the word State in State Children's Healthcare Program or S-Chip) to stand up to our fearful (as in fearful of Al,Queada, Saddam Husein, Iran, Gay marriage, and evidently horses) leader on any meaningful issue.

So I am going to write my representatives, and ask them the question... The question they, the press, or up until now the American people have failed to ask........ What are you going to do about the border situation? The one in Iraq, Afghanistan, and here in The United States.

Its a shame we have to ask.

G.O.P To Endorse Hillary Clinton In Her White House Bid

Sounds preposterous, doesn't it?

On the surface, it does. I've listened to so-called conservatives talk for over a decade about the now junior Senator from New York. She's been called everything except a child of God, including "Hitlery", " Hildabeast" and worse.

But as I watched the post-game of the recent Fox "Not The News" News debate between the G.O.P. candidates, it suddenly occurred to me what the Republican National Committee is trying to do.

The Republicans Are Trying To Get Senator Hillary Clinton Elected!

The biggest rise out the panel judging the debate for Fox always came when one of the can'tidates (as in "We Can't Let Hillary Win" Candidates) mentioned the DNCs probable nominee for President.

The debate crowd heard "Hillary Clinton" much more than "Ronald Reagan" and we should get ready for more of this. They have to know it makes her stronger every time they speak her name. It makes Democrats think "If this is what the party of GWOT is really afraid of, maybe that's what we need".

It almost makes sense to me (except for the whole "she's not really a liberal" thing that no body's figured out).

I've heard callers on talk radio, and talk radio show hosts say they wanted Senator Clinton to win, so that she could mess things up so bad, the country would have to elect a Republican next time.

They're scared Hillary will create a government health care state

President Bush has laid the foundation with the Seniors drug program, and a failure to talk the American Public (or at least a Republican Congress) into supporting.

They know Senator Clinton will "cut-and-run" in Iraq

Uhh, no she won't... Of all the Democrats seeking the nomination, her policy would most resemble President Bush's stance on foreign affairs, and Iraq.

If Senator Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, the Republican Party will have their cake and eat it too. They'll have the President in power most like George Bush, and they'll get to complain about her for 4 (probably 8) years. So-called "Conservative" talk will flourish, and Democrat bashing will abound. Who will be the Kenneth Starr to Bill's Hillary?

After all, if there is one thing we've learned over the last 12 years of "conservative" rule. The G.O.P. makes a much better minority party. They make a better armchair quarterback, than coach. Its better to complain about the way things are run, than actually run them.

The Republican National Committee has figured it out. That's why they're hoping she'll win.

Illegal Immigration: By Presidential Invitation

Many people have argued that the illegal immigrants are an invading force, sent by the South-American (and Mexican) governments to take back the land that was stolen over the last 500 years.

Latinos are quickly becoming the largest minority, and its safe to say that each year we incorporate a little more Latino culture into our own, for good or bad.

Well, if this is an invasion, what is our government doing about it? Its worth mentioning much of the reason we've not succeeded as quickly as we should have is that we're having trouble securing the borders in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Is this another "Bush Blunder" to be piled on top of one of the large volumes of piles of mistakes made in the past 6 years?

Maybe this is the one Bush strategy that's worked. Maybe this illegal immigration is by invitation.

President Bush, in 2005, signed the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" along with then Presidents Vicente Fox, and Prime Minister Paul Martin. The SPP (which has not been submitted to Congress for review) official purpose is to provide:

"the framework to ensure that North America is the safest and best place to live and do business. It includes ambitious security and prosperity programs to keep our borders closed to terrorism yet open to trade."

If President Bush's long-term U.S. goal was to merge into a European Union style government, this makes perfect sense. Merge the people, then merge the government. Wouldn't that make it that much easier.

The Canadian and U.S. cultures are pretty much the same (basically), so the real hard part is integrating the Mexican culture into these. It takes a long time, with the need for tangling alliances (Read Jefferson), and cooperation from all parties.

The Mexican Government seems to be cooperating, at least. They give instructions to possible border-crossers, and don't even try to hide it. But this wouldn't be possible without the consent of the Commander-in Chief, who could declare this a National Security Risk, and use our valued troops for defending our homeland.

Isn't that what they've been told they're doing 7,000 miles away?

Buy Widespread Panic Music

The Surge Report - What Does It Mean?

With the Petraeus/Bush/DOD report on the surge filling all the news networks, both sides of the Iraq issue have claimed victory.

Supporters point to evidence that the surge is working. They note a significant drop in violence in the Anbar Province that points to the influx of troops has had a positive effect.

Opponents use the same data to point out that the surge was directed at the Baghdad area, and the drop in violence in the Anbar Province is due to a deal we've made with former batheists to take control of the areas they held, and had been fighting to re-gain control of since we invaded in 2003.

Truth is they're both right. The surge has worked, militarily, though not as well as Pro-war pundits want you to believe. Our military is the greatest force the planet has ever seen, and more of them means better results. This is why I thought we needed 1/2 a million troops to begin with.

The surge did focus mainly on Baghdad. The Anbar province has been bought and paid for (by our tax dollars by the way) and like the Batheists did in the 1980s, Sunni strongmen have used our money to quell resistance, and beat down what Al Qaeda-friendly groups were ever there to begin with.

I still think that invading Iraq was the worst decision a President has made since Reagan paid for the release of Iranian-held hostages (what a bad precedent to set), but once the President and Congress made the decision to start the invasion, I held my tongue, supported the troops, and hoped for the best.

Both sides have their positions, and they expect you to conform. No middle ground, middle ground makes people like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and other 2nd tier candidates arguments more valid.

May I remind you that we won the war a long time ago. Remember, we successfully overthrew the Batheist government, our stated goal......... Then we stayed. We should have left when we won.

Now it doesn't matter. We could leave tomorrow, or stay for 100 years, the damage has been done. We've alienated the world, weakened any bargaining position we had with most countries we need to deal with (Iran may get a bomb soon, but North Korea already has one that can hit North America).

Win or loose in Iraq, we've got a military that's strained (by almost all accounts), and like it or not, the military stands between us and danger on a daily basis, and not just in Iraq.

So think what you want about the war. Believe President Bush or the Democratic Congress at your own peril. They've both lied to us before, and I hear there's a saying in Texas about getting fooled twice.

Will we be fooled again?

Buy Black Crowes Music

Can Ron Paul Get Elected?

Buy Ron Paul stuff on Amazon


This is a tough question. The optimist in me wants to say: "The American people are starting to see the light, and Ron Paul can help America start to turn the tide".

The Pessimist part of me keeps saying: "He can't win because he doesn't have a fair shake. He doesn't have the p.r. machine, or the money to buy ads, so he can't get his message out".

I'd love to help get Ron Paul nominated for the Republican ticket. That would be optimal.

But because I fear this to be, at this point at least, unlikely I have decided to institute a three chance strategy to help Dr. Paul get more attention, and eventually nominated on a ticket that can compete, at least enough to get enough attention to continue the cause. I'd like to briefly outline this strategy

Vote for Ron Paul in your Republican primaries

1) I will likely vote for Ron Paul in my state's primary. I will also attempt to convince as many readers and friends to do the same. As I mentioned before, this is the optimal situation, though the least likely.

But the more people who learn about Ron Paul through his affiliation with the Republican Party, the more people who will likely follow him (or recruit him, as may need to be the case) to the next chance.

Draft Ron Paul to accept the Libertarian nomination

2) I believe that the Libertarian Party would welcome another Ron Paul Presidential run. He'd bring a lot of attention to the party, and have the best chance to really compete ever. This would be great for the Libertarian Party, and even though Ron Paul has said he's not interested in doing this, its going to be hard for many of his supporters to give up and support Giuliani or Clinton if he's not the nominee. Many of us see that this is not just a Ron Paul Revolution, but an attempt by the people to re-establish control of the government.

Nominate Ron Paul to the Unity 08 ticket

3) I am a founding delegate of Unity 08. If you are not familiar with what Unity 08 is, visit their website. To summarize, the delegates will nominate a Republican and a Democrat to represent the ticket via an online vote. If the winner accepts the nomination, they will be given the ticket's support for the campaign. I feel that if the people who followed him from either the GOP or the LP joined Unity 08, and voted for him in the online nomination process, we could form a powerful block, and shape the ticket to really have a chance to change the way things are run in Washington DC.

So I know, I'm trying to think 3 steps ahead of a process that really hasn't gone into full-speed mode yet. The fact of the matter is, if you support Ron Paul, and are not willing to take no by the GOP for an answer, its time to start thinking about what's next. Vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary in your state, and tell people to do the same.

Just don't put all of your eggs into a basket that is as badly made as the GOP.

Ron Paul And The Fair Tax: Can I support both?

So, as you can see, I'm both a fan of Ron Paul, and The Fair Tax.

But does Ron Paul Support the Fair tax?

Actually, it appears that there is not a clear answer to this. He has suggested that he would vote for the Fair Tax if brought to a vote on the house floor, but he does not think its the best possible solution either.

I can understand his position actually. The fair tax would not reduce government income. Those reductions would have to come later.

One of the main problems I have with the Fair Tax, is that it is inclusive. I want people to see how much tax they pay.

For me, the situation is simple. I do not support all of Ron Paul's positions, but that doesn't mean I can't support him. He may indeed be the President that would sign the Fair Tax law, something no candidate (except Mike Gravel) is offering to make a priority, and I'm sure he'd be more likely to force Congress to cut spending than any other major candidate in the race.

Ron Paul is the best chance we have to start to take our government back. If that means the Fair Tax has to wait another 5 years, I'll make that trade and not think twice.

Of course, both would be nice

Republicans for Hilary: Wasting your vote for the good of our country

What if Republican voters in states that allow open primaries went to the polls to vote for John Edwards?

Or Barak Obama?

What if they went in droves to vote for her to head the Democratic ticket?

As I've stated many times, she's the only way the Republicans can win in 2008, and Republicans have known this for some time.

They've done this before, perhaps on a smaller scale. A few years ago, the Republican party made a deal with Denise Magette to allow her to run unopposed in the general election after many Republicans crossed the aisle to vote against Cynthia McKinney.

I've made it known that this plan will backfire.

It may however create an opening for someone like Ron Paul. Ron Paul is one of the few Republican candidates who is a great deal more conservative than Senator Clinton.

So, as a supporter of independent candidates, Ron Paul, and Unity 08, I say to all good Republicans who don't like to think about the issues, and easily fall for the deamonization of the "other side", go out and do your part. Vote for Hillary Clinton in your local primary.

If you are going to be stupid enough to fall for this "Hitlery" bull-poop (she's more conservative than Rudy Giuliani for heavan's sake), you deserve to waste your vote, which in turn will give those of us who are really trying to change our government that much more power.

Buy Matchbox Twenty Music

Liberty: The Shining City on A Hill

Once upon a time, in America, we had liberty. Liberty has been good to us.

The United States didn't become a super power because of its great military, great leadership, or even because of capitalism.

Liberty did that for us.

People came to our country for liberty, not money. Liberty made us that shining city on a hill. Not religion. Not overwhelming military force, or the economy.

Immigrants have always known that our country was the best place to live, because if you had a work ethic, and a good idea, you could become rich, or at least make a life for yourself. The government left you alone, and let you live your life as you chose to live it.

Now unfortunately, we're moving away from liberty, and its not just the Democratic party that is trying to take liberty away.

If you want to make something illegal because its morally wrong, you are part of the problem.

If you support wiretapping without a warrant (I support getting a warrant afterwards at least), you are part of the problem

If you support governments over-reaching its authority on eminent domain issues, you are part of the problem.

You see, the Democrat and Republican parties are not the problem. They are a symptom (like a cough tells you that you are sick). After all, we seem to be letting both parties get away with taking our liberties, and we do nothing to stop them. We keep sending them back, and acting like we have to vote for them in blocks, or the other side will "ruin America".

This is why I support a totally write-in election where spelling counts, and you have to know about what you are talking about for your vote to count (maybe you'd have to tell us who Sec of State is or something to that effect).

While the Democrats and the Republicans act like their fighting to keep the chaos factor in check, secretly their both taking our liberty away, little by little.

This is a bi-partisan problem, and it requires a tri-partisan solution.

The Hawg Pen will be visiting with T Lee Horne (L - LA) who is campaigning for Governor of Louisiana, on our next show, which is this Saturday @ 10:00a.m. (Eastern Standard Time).

T Lee Horne is probably most famous for his organization of national Libertarian support for private relief after Katrina in 2005, and has been actively campaigning for the seat since 2003.


Sounds like he's taking it pretty seriously to me.

Of course we'll discuss Katrina, and how he'd handle the situation, and what he's preparing to do if he's elected Governor. I look forward to what he has say.


I'm sure that neither the Democrats or Republicans want to hear the 3rd side of this story, considering how well it worked.

So listen Saturday morning. You just may learn something

Sneak and Run: Presiden't Bush Answers His Democratic Strategists, er.... uh Critics..

If a van load of people showed up at your house with guns, turned off your electricity, cutoff your garbage service, and then drove around the house to make sure none of your neighbors tried to fight them, would you greet them as liberators?

What if the head guy had a Jesus complex, and constantly made tactical mistakes?

But it's all good. Don't worry, they're telling you their going to leave when you are able to run your own house. After all, they got rid of that Uncle that kept the rest of the family from fighting because they thought he still had some guns they'd given him 20 years ago.

President Bush, in his press conference today spoke of the need to set benchmarks (most of which we've already met!!!), so we could tell the Iraqi government that it was time for them to step up and take control of its future.

I'd bet we've setup a timetable, that only our two governments know about.

This is the same strategy that the Democrats have been urging for years. The tactics, however are slightly different.

We're not interested in letting the Iraqi rebels (shouldn't that be what they're called, aren't they fighting the duly elected government over there?) know when we're leaving, but we're pretty much telling them we're leaving.

I guess the Bush administration doesn't think the Iraqi rebels will notice us pulling back. If we'd put enough troops in their to get the job done in the first place, there'd be no doubt we were withdrawing. Of course, we wouldn't have been there for going on 5 years if we'd gone in to win in the first place.

As Ive said before, that's why I'm against pre-emptive war. We shouldn't use force unless there is no other alternative. You do know that Saudi Arabia (another country that benefits from the chaos in Iraq) had more to do with 9/11 than Iraq did, right?................right?

President Bush: If you want to enact Democratic plans (like No Child Left Behind, the Homeland Security Department, tax breaks for hybrid cars even if he did laugh at that one to begin with, and the Sneak and Run), would you please do it a little quicker. While you are waiting the 2 months between Democratic suggestion, and your enacting of the plan (after re-wording the Democratic plan to make sure it will never work), our kids are dying over there.

President Bush: Support the Troops.............Enact your cheat of Democratic strategy within 2 weeks of their suggestion. I'll even talk to them about going ahead and really screwing it up (shouldn't be a problem) before it gets to you, so you won't have to stay up past 9p.m. to read it.

Immigration: Mission Accomplished?

Talk Radio, the conservative movement, and Americans everywhere are declaring victory over last week's defeat of the "Amnesty" bill in Washington.

I think that we should rent an aircraft carrier, put up a sign declaring victory, and get someone cool to ride a plane onto the ship, and talk about how the mission has been accomplished.

Why? Because the victory we're declaring is only the opening salvo in the battle for our nation. Like President Bush, dressed up (he dresses up like a cowboy and a airpane pilot more than anyone I've ever met that wasn't over 10), ready for his flight, with the gleam of arrogance in his eye, the American people have fallen for the great head fake.

All we did was not allow our Federal Government to make the problem worse.... We still have the problem!!

President Bush has failed his Constitutional (You remember that document, right?) responsibilities by not making it a priority to solve this problem in a rational way.

Many former supporters have seen the arrogance ("I'll see you at the bill signing") that I have seen since January of 2001. The arrogance that has turned the world against our nation. The arrogance that has allowed millions of people to cross our borders to work at factories and take Americans jobs. Those factory owners did not vote for Al Gore, or John Kerry, I can guarantee that.

To say the Democrats benefit exclusively from this problem is as arrogant as this administration.

So don't declare victory. The mission is not accomplished. Not by a long-shot.

We still have work to do.

Between Iraq and a Hard Place

Beat...... Beat....... Beat..... You can hear them in the distance. The war drums, preparing us for yet another Bush Administration war. Iran, another member of the axis of feeble hears them too.

During the last two republican debates, many of the candidates have discussed Iran, and possibly using tactical Nukes to destroy any nuclear facility in the Persian Empire. Nine out of Ten (the tenth being Ron Paul) candidates refused to take the option off the table during the most recent debate.

That, to me is a good-enough reason to refuse to vote for any Republican (like I would anyway, I know) candidate, and to be honest, this is the scariest thing I've heard in a long time.

I could discuss the environmental effect (people that don't believe in Global climate change should stop reading, I'm going to make sense for a minute) would be disastrous to the region.

The political effects would be much worse for the Middle-East, and The U.S.

If we killed 10,000 people with these tactical nukes (considering the after effects seen at Chernobyl, I believe this estimate to be low), we'd create 100,000 terrorists

This would be seen as a declaration of war by Iran, as it should. They would immediately invade Iraq. This would cause Saudi-Arabia (You remember them, the country that actually had more to do with September 11th than Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.....follow the money.....) to come to the defense of their Sunni brothers in Iraq.

And they're all going to attack Israel.

I believe this is likely to happen when we pull our troops out of Iraq before the next election anyway. But at least our troops won't be there to get stuck in the middle of a regional war.

It is time for people to W A K E U P ! ! ! Seriously. The Sheet of Glass theory is ridiculous, and it will only cause more harm to our nation. I'm trying to be clear on this point. If you support pre-emptive nuclear attacks, you have no business being State Senator, much less President of The United States. Nuclear weapons should only be used if they are used on us. No exceptions. A pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran is direct support for Al Queda (A Sunni organization) and it would give comfort and aide to the 50 or so al queda members left fighting us in Iraq.

The Bush Administration has created more Islamic extremists than it has eliminated. The Republican Candidates (except Ron Paul) want to create more.

They are playing on your fears. Fears they created. Its one big circle of fear. Fear of Iran, Fear of Iraq, and Al Queda. Fear of a Democratic Administration. Fear of everything except the American People.

Our government should fear us above all else. It hasn't feared us for quite some time.

Jackson County GA: Real Estate Boom, and The Old County

So I've been blogging for about 2 and 1/2 months now, and I can say it has become a rather fun hobby for me. Mrs. G Blog works weird hours right now, so a lot of the time its just me and the pets. Hopefully, things should settle-down some soon, and we can resume our "normal" lives.

Every blog I've posted to date has been about politics. That's what this site is all about. This one is a little different.

I grew up in Jackson County Georgia, about 60 miles northeast of Atlanta on the I-85 corridor. I grew up on Jackson Trail road, back before the developers moved in. And they have moved in. Jackson County is the 43rd fastest growing county in the nation, and has been moving down the list at a very fast pace since 2000. I don't live in Jackson County now, but I still consider it home.

As a Libertarian, I understand that this is a product of a competitive marketplace, and that it financially benefits the people of Jackson County.

As a product of the rural south, I cringe at the thought of suburbia creeping toward my homeland, devouring acre upon acre of farm land, and spitting out cookie-cutter homes, Bradford pear trees, and asphalt and concrete. My closest neighbor lived 1/4 mile away when I was growing up. The house now has 3 houses to its west, and a 50+ house subdivision adjoining to its south property line. We used to have to drive to hear our neighbors, and now you can see them from the kitchen window.

Land Values are up in Jackson County, and so are the spirits of the locals. Like other rural areas, the real-estate boom has been good to people that live in this area. Like I said, its the free market at its best.

But Jackson County isn't the same place where I grew up. With all the new Red-lights, subdivisions, 4-lane roads, fast-food restaurants, businesses, cars, schools and people that are there, I hardly recognize the place. I'm not saying its not better, its just different.

Maybe that's what they mean when they say "you can never go home".

The Fair Tax: Can it help the U.S. compete with the Euro?

If you've been to Europe lately, you may have noticed how weak the U.S. dollar is right now.

The Euro is strong, and there have even been whispers here in America about a new North American Union, a E.U. style body, complete with a common money. (The Amero?)

This blog isn't about NWO (The New World Order) and its attempt to globalize government and the economy, though I do feel my readers should acquaint themselves with this topic. Agree or disagree with the NWO movement, you need to know about it. (I strongly disagree, for the record).

This is a blog about The Fair Tax, and how it can help resurrect the dollar's power in Europe and the world.

The Fair Tax would give the U.S. the title of "wolds best tax haven". Many of the businesses who moved overseas would move back, new businesses would be created, and businesses that had never thought about moving to the U.S. would jump on the first plane here.

Implementation would spur the economy, and it would be real growth, unlike much of the dot.com bubble which was over-inflated, just as our taxes are today.

The Fair Tax would resurrect the dollar, and put the U.S. back on the growth map, and set an example for states and countries all over the world.

The Fair Tax is NOT A Tax cut. It can be, because its a tax you choose to pay. It could also mean a tax rate for people who aren't frugal, but again, they choose to pay the tax, that's why its called The Fair Tax. Its a different way of collecting taxes. The only problem I have with the Fair Tax, is the fact that it is not embedded. I'd like for us to know how much we pay the federal government every time we see the receipt. I bet taxes would go down then, but that's my humble opinion.

So, say no to the NWO movement, to the plunging dollar, and a sputtering economy.

Say yes to the Fair Tax. Its the choice that lets you choose how much you contribute to your government.

Ron Paul: No More GOP Debates Please!!

After much consideration, I have developed the opinion that Ron Paul should no longer be allowed to participate in any further Republican Debates He does not belong on stage with the rest of the field.

That's right, I said it, and I stand behind the statement.

I mean, should the Republicans allow Mike Gravel to debate with the serious GOP candidates? I think not. He's a Democrat, for heaven's sake

Well, Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He even ran for President as the LP candidate in 1998.

I've said several times that if Dr. Paul does not win the GOP nomination, he'd run as the Libertarian nominee. Until recently, I fully felt that my prediction would come to fruition.

But what about Unity08?

I've blogged about this "non" party before. Sometimes I wonder how serious the Libertarian Party is about getting major candidates elected. Or at least noticed.

Either way, I believe its time that Dr. Paul admit he's not a Republican. Or at least what other people think about when they think about Republicans.

I understand what Representative Ron Paul is doing. He's trying to fight the party from within. Its not working Dr. Paul. On my radio show, even the Republican co-host didn't really know much about Ron Paul's ideas. And he's generally well-informed.

Dr. Paul is not going to be able to continue to get his message out to possible Republican Voters. He's tapped that market. Its time to move on to the next.

Organize libertarians Dr. Paul. We are going to support you!! Many of us who are cautious about supporting a Republican candidate want to spread your message. Liberty Liberty Liberty. Its all about the liberty.

We get you Rep. Paul... Now help us get you support.

The Environment: Hawgpen BOTW

Its hard to look at this photo and say "climate change doesn't exist". To say its not happening is not really a defensible position.

Now I think that two reasonable people can debate whether its caused by human activity or not. Credible evidence can be given to support both sides of this argument. I personally believe that human activity is speeding up a climate change that was going to happen eventually.

Of course, I was a D student in science class, so I'm not claiming to be a knowledgeable source.


I would rather my great-grandchildren laugh at my generation because we tried to stop something we couldn't stop and didn't cause, than my great-grandchildren hate my generation because we did nothing, and we could have.

I believe that green technology and green business and products are a great example of capitalism at its best, and I think that we have an opportunity to take the lead in this market. Our private industries should invest in green technology, so that they can be more efficient. It makes good business sense.

I believe the military could lead the charge toward energy independence. The military invented the Internet. And the A-Bomb. If you give them a goal, they will work to achieve it.

Are we doomed? I sure hope not. But I don't think we should sit around and do nothing.

Campaign Finance Reform: A different perspective

Everyone has their opinion about campaign finance reform.

Many want to publicly fund it, while others wish to deregulate it altogether. There are also many people who favor a "compromise" position on the issue.

I think if you look at what campaign financing does to our government, you will agree it is the biggest problem our citizens face as we try to take our government back.

Of course, I have a position of my own, that I don't think fits any of the categories above.

Why don't we make all paid advertising by any candidate running for office illegal?

We could limit advertising to the candidates "official" website, and and they could post the code for anyone to embed into their website or play on the television, as long as the people did not accept money to post them. If the Coweta County VFW wanted to get Dr. George Phillies to give a speech, they could fly him in, and pay for the flight, rental car or cab (or a limo for that matter), a hotel (I wouldn't want to put limits on how nice they were either), and the ticket home. Nothing else. No fund raisers would be needed or allowed.

Same thing for "soft money" ads, or "issue ads." You know the ones that don't tell you how great someone is, but how bad the other guy is. These PACs distort the issues, and generally do a dis-service to people trying to educate themselves on the issues.

Do you think this violates our 1st amendment right to free speech? I don't necessarily think that it does (if I thought it did, I wouldn't be proposing it to you.) Its not censorship. We disallowed cigarette ads and others before. Allowing people with the money to pay for votes infringes on other candidates' first amendment right to free speech..

In Abraham Lincoln's time, it was thought to be rude to campaign for political office. Now its a requirement. Of course, Fred Thompson seems to be doing a pretty good job of not campaigning for President right now.

If we didn't allow political ads, maybe candidates would have to get their message out the old-fashioned way. By earning it.

I'm not saying we shouldn't allow candidates to do interviews in the newspaper and on television and radio. I just don't think they should pay to do it. Is John McCain's message really that better than Tom Tancredo? Its hard to tell, we don't get to hear his message much. Same could be said for Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, and all of the candidates running for President in a 3rd party, or independently.

Grass-roots movements are the only movements that truly work. This would force anyone seeking political office to start at the grass-roots level.

Well, here's the part where you call me Communist. I promise, this to me, is all about fair competition, you know: whoever offers the best product wins. These expensive ads place "unofficial" regulations on anyone trying to run for political office.

The best way to solve this problem, is by eliminating it altogether.

RNC for Hillary Clinton:

I have been aware of the RNC's almost overt strategy to force the Democratic party's Presidential nomination onto Senator Hillary Clinton for some time now. Its getting more intense as we count the days until November 2008.

The strategy is obvious, and the tactical operations are already under way. There are signs all over Atlanta (paid for by the local radio station) blasting Senator Clinton while advertising for Shawn Hannity's radio show.

The RNC understands that Senator Clinton is their best chance to get any Republican elected in 2008. They need her, and they need her to be successful.

With Democratic nominee Clinton, the Republicans think they have the perfect storm setup to keep control of the White House, and re-assume control of both houses of Congress.

The Republicans will be able to appeal to their base (conservatives who are anti-Clinton to the core), and with Mitt Romney or Rudolph Giuliani (or Newt Gingrich, as I have predicted) as the Republican nominee and their base secured, they can make a b-line toward the center of American Politics.

You remember the center, right? The center elected George W. Bush President. The center also put the Democrats back in charge at the beginning of this year.

With the base energized, and the center in your corner (believe me, the Republican nominee will be hopping a jet plane to the center as soon as he can), you cant loose.

This is going to backfire on the Republican Party, and the result could likely be a 2nd Clinton Administration.

You see, the center is starting to wake up. The center is beginning to understand what both the Republican and Democratic parties are all about. They are about whatever it takes to win an election. They are about using fear (of a Clinton Presidency for the right, and Iraq for the left) to maintain a strangle hold on power.

Neither party has been about governing for quite some time.

We are going to have a major 3rd party candidate this year. Whether it be Ron Paul, Michael Bloomberg, George Phillies or someone else, it is inevitable. And it will affect the outcome of the election. This 3rd way will divide the center into 3 separate but unequal blocks of voters. Check out those first two names. Do you really think either one of them are going to take votes from Hillary Clinton?

The RNC is firing up their base. But they're also firing up Senator Clinton's base, and getting her votes. The cente-left is going to vote for Senator Clinton if she's nominated. Because of Iraq (it doesn't make sense, I know, but I'm not wrong), and the Bush Administration's incompetence to govern (this one makes complete sense to me.) The center-right is going to either not vote (because they don't think they have a choice) or vote for the 3rd party candidate.

I do not support Senator Clinton because of her policy ideas. I do not believe government health care is wise, nor do I think that throwing more money into the educational system that needs a total overhaul to be in the best interest of our country. I don't call her names because I understand her positions, and that is reason enough for me not to support her. I don't think she's Hitler. I just think she's wrong.

But the RNC is going to get Hillary Clinton elected President of the United States. So remember the next time you throw the word "libtard" or "Hitlery" into your comment to Doc Jay's blog that you probably just helped give Hillary Clinton one more vote.

That's why I'm blaming you when she takes the oath. Not the liberals. Not the 3rd party voters. Not Hillary Clinton. At least she's smart enough to realize what's going on and embrace it.

That shows a political shrewdness of the highest order, and I think we can thank the most conservative President since Richard Nixon (I'm talking about Bill Clinton) for seeing it, and taking advantage of the RNC strategy.

After all, it worked for him twice, didn't it?

Memorial Day Message

I wanted to take this opportunity on the day we set aside for our fallen military personnel to share my feelings about the brave men and women that have and continue to pay the ultimate price in defense of our great nation.

I am able to publish this blog because men and women for over 200 years have fought and died in the name of liberty, and the American way to protect my right to dissent.

People can make their own judgement about whether our current foreign policy is working. We'll have a referendum in about a year and a half mainly on this issue, and men and women have died to protect that right to make the choice. We owe it to them to take advantage of this chance, but we must not forget their sacrifice.

As I've said before, the men an women of our military have achieved every task they've been given, they have fought with honor and dignity in almost every case, and whether they agree with the conversation going on here about the war, every one of them is a hero, and we shouldn't let them forget that.

In these brave men and women's honor, let us make sure our government understands that it must give the troops the tools to win the war, and goals with a plan to achieve it. Lets make sure they have the armor they need. Lets make sure we provide funding and world-class care through our V.A. (don't forget FisherHouse), and help our troops get the medical care they deserve. Lets make sure they are given plan to win, or send them home. Let's not keep them on the fence in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else they are.

These are our son's and daughter's, our brother's and sisters, every one. They don't ask for anything in return for their life. They died fighting for us. Not a foreign policy. Not the Republican or Democratic party. They are doing it for you, so that you can do what you are doing right now.

Don't they deserve a government and citizen body that takes better care of them, in battle or at home? One that honors the many fallen heroes memory by working for our soldiers in harm's way right now.

I personally think they deserve so much more. I want to thank them for the price they and their family (lets not forget them either) have paid.

They should all be our heroes.... And we should never forget their sacrifice.

The Reaganomics Of Immigration

I'm trying to keep on top of the immigration battle on capital hill (the battle between the people and the government that is), and it looks like we're going to be cutting the number of guest workers we allow into our country by 1/2 (from 800,000 to 400,000).

I think the Republican party should step forward and stop this from happening

After all, they are the party of "supply-side economics", or as I like to call it "tinkle-down-economics".

A condensed and G-Blog opinionated version example of Supply-side economics:

You've got a company that makes televisions. In order to spur the economy, supply-siders wish to target the company with tax cuts and credits. This will allow the company to hire more employees, build more televisions, and those employees buy products and services from other companies who have lower prices because there is a higher supply. Presto!!: You have an economic upturn.

Now for the record, I've never been a big fan of supply side economics for tax policy. As a libertarian I do not think the government tax burden should be large enough to effect the economy to begin with.

But Republicans love Reaganomics. Why don't they think it should apply here? If we increase the supply, won't it lessen the demand, which keeps illegal immigration down?

Reagan would say it does.

This bill is wrong for liberals, conservatives, libertarians, immigrants, aliens and all Americans alike. This is what happens when you band-aid a problem to cut the discussion out of the election process.

It's playing politics on both sides, and we should not take this anymore.

Contact your Senator, Representative and President to let them know how you feel about this bill. Then show them how you feel about it at your next election.